Quote note (#184)

Thompson:

It is little surprise that people want to move from badly organised countries to better organised ones. What is more surprising is that the causes of bad national organisation are so often ascribed to external factors rather than to the people who live in such countries. The theory seems to be that some people, by an accident of birth, had the good fortune to be plonked down in a place with laws, institutions, roads, schools and hospitals, while others had the misfortune to be born in places with dictators, gangs, muddy tracks and slums. According to this world picture, if you move people from the unfortunate to the fortunate geographies, then the world’s problems are solved.

One consequence of escaping this common error is the downgrading of the territorial obsessions common on the right. Free association is the real topic of concern. Pieces of real estate are never more than rough proxies for that.

September 14, 2015admin 39 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

39 Responses to this entry

  • Quote note (#184) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on September 14th, 2015 at 1:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    I don’t see how this follows.

    Under the hypothesis that the snarling brown savages who are clamoring at the gates are the ultimate cause of the dictators, gangs, muddy tracks, and slums that they are fleeing, I feel a lot stronger about keeping them out than before.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Free association does everything, as long as it’s conceived strongly and realistically.

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    What it comes down to: I don’t believe that you can really keep the hoodlums from loitering on the corner, littering, cat-calling my daughters, etc.

    No matter how steep you make the incentives, it doesn’t matter. They aren’t rational actors and don’t respond to incentives. Even if you could somehow impose the incentives – e.g., an extremely large and aggressive police force, draconian laws, etc – having that apparatus in place imposes a cost on me that I otherwise wouldn’t have to bear.

    Unavoidably, their mere proximity to me worsens my life, in one way or the another, and this is true even if my neighbors all have deed restrictions that say their houses can’t be sold to blacks, and even if the neighborhood golf club is now allowed to be explicitly whites-only . Much cheaper, nicer, and above all, more comprehensive, to simply not allow them into the territory at all. In fact, for me, border control is the highest form of free association.

    Or am I missing something?

    [Reply]

    chris b Reply:

    “Or am I missing something?”

    Yes, you’ve applied intellectual discretion to reason the issue out from varying angles when you should have chosen an abstract concept like “free association” and then apllied it monotonously to all questions.

    admin Reply:

    You have that completely upside down. It’s a matter of seizing the opportunity to think what Free Association actually means, rather than lazily filing it in the transparently intelligible slogans box.

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    @admin:

    That is what I’m grasping at. What does Free Association really mean? I don’t understand. Please spell it out for me?

    admin Reply:

    The point is: Territory (used responsibly) is a population-sorting resource. Any position that takes it more seriously than that is sliding into romantic fetishism.

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    Why does ‘free association’ become associated with ‘open borders’ when it is very much closer, as Kwisatz suggests, to the (closed, controlled) opposite? Mention ‘free association’ to a neoreactionary and they’ll assume you want to force blacks to live in their territory. Mention ‘liberty’ to a neoreactionary and they assume you mean you want to force them to live in your progressive democracy. Mention the ‘NAP’ to a neoreactionary and they’ll assume your inviting violence against yourself. And this is the front for a white supremacist elite? We’re doomed.

    On further note, only a drooling moron could follow XS after so long and still regard it as a ‘left-libertarian’ blog. http://www.xenosystems.net/ethnomasochism/

    And the last sentence of Thompson’s post: “Unless migrants contain significant numbers of people of IQ 125+ then a really positive impact on national wealth is unlikely.”

    Unless you have a problem with Silicon Valley demographics (east Asians, whites, jews) then tech-comm profit-based immigration probably won’t haunt your nights. And are we suddenly just all homogeneous ‘white people’ without intergroup or intragroup diversity in our blood?

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    “What it comes down to: I don’t believe that you can really keep the hoodlums from loitering on the corner, littering, cat-calling my daughters, etc. ”

    Then you were born doomed and always were.

    What keeps them away is FEAR and that Sir comes from MEN.

    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    “And the last sentence of Thompson’s post: “Unless migrants contain significant numbers of people of IQ 125+ then a really positive impact on national wealth is unlikely.”

    However, lower caliber migrants often increase the personal wealth of some individuals, even if they do not increase the national wealth.

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    @ AIAT

    In Australia the lower caliber migrants have been imported due to the Left’s ‘anti-discrimination’ activism for no other purpose than to loiter in suburbs and collect welfare. Strangely enough they seem to be filling parts of the city that white Australians have left largely abandoned because of sub-replacement fertility. So ‘cheap labor’ as a ‘capitalist’ incentive for importing thousands of useless Sudanese Muslims does not add up. These immigrants do not work!

    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    That’s true. One has to assume that there are other motivations for importing blacks and lower class Muslims.

    But people are making lots and lots of money on Mexican immigration in the United States. Mexican immigrants do work, at least in the first generation.

    And not all Asian immigration is high IQ, some of it is just cheaper than the equivalent native labor.

    I doubt Zuckerberg is thinking about the national wealth when he agitates for more H1Bs. He has someone else’s wealth in mind.

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    So the major problem with Mexican immigration is they take jobs that otherwise would be filled by native citizens, which though costing rich capitalists a little more would avoid creating a ‘diverse’ underclass that may well breed out native populations.

    Relevant: a crack team of expert sociologists are trying hard to prove that immigrants commit less crime than natives:

    “Other sociologists like Jessie Daniels and David Cort focus explicitly on researching hate speech on the internet and *the lower rates of crime among immigrants relative to native born Americans*, respectively” http://t.co/OGtJRcb7vx

    I admit that’s a bad sign. Hypothetically, if Trump was to be elected and managed to round up the illegal immigrants and send them packing, and also place restrictions on the importation of cheap labor, do you think the jobs they leave behind would be filled by (lower-class) white Americans, and would that be better for national wealth and social cohesion? Didn’t America achieve greatness once before by importing cheap slave labor from overseas? … Of course, long-term consequences are harder to predict.

    caged kindness Reply:

    Didn’t America achieve greatness once before by importing cheap slave labor from overseas?

    Any greatness came from other areas.

    All the numbers I’ve seen from that era puts slaves in the “poorly performing asset” category. And the legacy costs are huge.

    Chuck Reply:

    Chris B said: “Yes, you’ve applied intellectual discretion to reason the issue out from varying angles when you should have chosen an abstract concept like “free association” and then apllied it monotonously to all questions.”

    The virtue of phronesis is that it doesn’t incline itself to moral and political universalism, as reasoning down from abstracts does.

    Posted on September 14th, 2015 at 3:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Quote note (#184) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on September 14th, 2015 at 4:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • George Says:

    I think what Mr. Land is saying is that civic nationalism via territorial obsessions leads to the negation of the true spirit of Free Association. White Nationalism is just a subset of Civic Nationalism. True Free Association doesn’t much consider the limitations imposed by geopolitics.

    But I could have misunderstood this post entirely.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 14th, 2015 at 4:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    “Finaccord, an international market research and consulting firm, predicts that there will be about 56.8 million expats by 2017”

    Ecuador Best Country for Expats
    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/08/26/survey-ecuador-best-country-for-expats

    Singapore on fourth place

    [Reply]

    Scharlach Reply:

    And Mexico is first. I know I harp on this around these parts, but Americans get a faulty view of Latin America because for over thirty years we have been the dumping grounds of Latin America’s underclass. (It would be like Canada’s view of Americans if a bunch of rednecks migrated north.)

    Apropos the post, taking the Latin American underclass out of Latin America doesn’t make them an Anglo American middle class.

    That said, I much prefer our immigrant population to the one about to engulf Europe. I think Sailer is realizing this, too; the disaster over there is putting Mexican day laborers into perspective.

    [Reply]

    Shenpen Reply:

    If you earn your income online or have savings, a poor country is obviously a good cheap place to live, as long as you find an area where security is tight (mostly private police). Just never have to rely on a local job salary.

    So it is two ways. Folks who have to rely on salaries where they live move to richer countries and folks who don’t move to poorer, cheaper ones.

    This is why I think we are missing an obvious move here in Hungary. A decent older house in 30min driving distance to an 50-60K people city is about $30-40K, a new one maybe $60K which should attract Western expats who have savings or work online. The problem is with crime. We should be building fenced, privately policed communities for them, sell them for $80K and turn a nice profit. And generally we should want these kinds of people here. They are smart, well behaved, their kids will excel at school, preferably a bilingual one… it would be the good kind of immigration.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 14th, 2015 at 6:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    Culture, not people. Though culture does tend to adhere to people. The culture holds the accreted impacts and heritages of some great inventors. The path-dependence is what gives legs to the idea of historical ‘luck.’
    You can see that peoples can be degenerated if sufficiently deracinated. Rule of law is not inevitable if skins happen to be pale.

    [Reply]

    Scharlach Reply:

    Yeah, the second thing you said.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 14th, 2015 at 7:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • Patrick L Says:

    It seems trivially correct though: Moving a farmer from Antarctica to almost anywhere else will see their productivity increase. That’s not a technology, skill, iq, or culture issue, that’s a *some places are sub-optimal for humans to live in* issue. Moving a cab driver or a truck driver from Chili to the United States will see their wages increase ten-fold, but they haven’t necessarily gotten any better at driving. They haven’t gotten smarter. It’s because low skilled workers in South America compete with other low skilled low paying jobs, and the workers move less valuable or uninteresting cargo around. In the US their wages are brought up by the fact the average potential worker can do much more interesting things and that the people and materials they move are more valuable. The actual worker isn’t better, but the environment around him is.

    In fact, we in the US are worse off not having him move, since we could potentially have even lower IQ, lower skilled people do these jobs, but the current worker’s wages are brought up so that moderately skilled people take them who we’d prefer be doing something else. We’d be better off if we could add additional drones at the bottom so that overqualified people in those positions, who came in because of high wages, would be doing something more productive. The customer would be better off buying a service from a less competent individual at a far cheaper price, even if the service was crappier.

    If you want to harp on this issue, you need to emphasize that this is a moral hazard issue. The worker coming into the country gets a benefit, his customers or employers get a benefit, but there are people who are made worse off, and we don’t have a just way of equitably dealing with that issue. And it’s not just the competing workers who are made worse off. Everyone who has to now deal with additional poverty in their area, or the culture shock of immigrants are made worse off in some ways. Even the increased risk of specific immigrant related crime

    Further, the global poor don’t have to come here. Large parts of Central and South America remain extremely depopulated, and moving to Argentina would still be an improvement for millions of people. Given Argentina’s immigration laws are quite open, millions of people could move there today, but choose not to.

    The whole idea that “hey it’s the people that are the problem” is kinda dumb. Cultures can be highly resilient to population shifts: either massive losses or massive gains in population. This is because culture includes those behaviors that are adaptive to the environment, including those necessary for survival and that the patterns of why they emerged in the first place continue to exist. There are exceptions, but does usually deal with numbers far in excess of realistic immigration numbers we’d be talking about from a likely policy standpoint.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    youreally ought to learn about HBD its kind of the foundation of DE/NRX

    [Reply]

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    No, I am the foundation of NRx.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 14th, 2015 at 9:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Scharlach Says:

    That’s not a technology, skill, iq, or culture issue, that’s a *some places are sub-optimal for humans to live in* issue.

    I was going to respond with the obvious, but then I read

    the whole idea that “hey it’s the people that are the problem” is kinda dumb.

    so now I’ve just decided to ignore you.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    when German troops were aproaching Chechen region during WW2 Stalin anticipating that Chechens will join Germans, boarded the whole population of republic on trains and relocated them to Kazachistan. no people – no problem.

    I woundering why we do not see similar solutions any more, but rather in opposite.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 14th, 2015 at 10:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dark Psy-Ops Says:

    You’d think having a slave class made up of ethnic aliens would be better for the elite since they’d feel less altruistic relatedness to those they are exploiting. But, in the end, American Whites fought the largest war in history (up to that time) to free the black slaves, so it’s nowhere near a perfect plan.

    it’s a double annoyance when black activists talk about ‘the slave masters of today’ because they are in effect denying that hundreds of thousands of white men died to free their forefathers. No sacrifice is costly enough to overcome human ingratitude.

    … A ‘White Nationalist’ is someone who can look at Sweden’s immigrant crisis and blame ‘global capitalism’. Oh and Rotherham? Who wants to bet the cover-up was all about the market incentives of Jewish capitalists?!

    [Reply]

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    “A ‘White Nationalist’ is someone who can look at Sweden’s immigrant crisis and blame ‘global capitalism’.” – Scratch that, it’s an attribution of agency intended only to irritate. And grammatical heresy is uncool too. The formal point to emphasize is that correct punishments can only be awarded after the real and actual perpetrators have been identified.

    [Reply]

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    It’s the Finns, duh.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 15th, 2015 at 2:49 am Reply | Quote
  • caged kindness Says:

    @Patrick L

    Moving a farmer from Antarctica to almost anywhere else will see their productivity increase

    But his productivity will be lower than any farmer elsewhere. Thus, he will not farm anywhere else. He is zero or negative utility: a loiterer on the street corner.

    We’d be better off if we could add additional drones at the bottom so that overqualified people in those positions, who came in because of high wages, would be doing something more productive.

    So you would think that countries would be clamoring for immigrants; even bidding for their services. But we see the opposite. The displaced worker has no higher productive alternative. The exporting countries don’t miss all their wonderfully productive people; they even encourage more to emigrate. More is left for the remaining people. The exporting nations are made better off.

    Face it: people are expensive, and their work is zero to negative utility. We don’t need the work most immigrants do. When a negative utility immigrant displaces a negative utility native, we are not better off.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    I dont know I bet anyone that was farming antartica [or any northern land ] would do better than the farmers he encountered after moving south.

    [Reply]

    Skilluminati Reply:

    That seems like “I bet anyone that grew up speaking Russian would speak better English than natives of the United States!”

    Or perhaps “Heroin junkies would make much better MMA competitors than healthy athletes could.”

    Starvation and failure are culling blades far more often than they’re teachers. If you’re fucked: you’re just fucked.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 15th, 2015 at 11:21 am Reply | Quote
  • Ruco Says:

    What’s interesting to observe is the consistency in which native underclasses degenerate to such a point that they start to resemble the unassimilable on other shores. The white rural underclass in the US approaches lived experience much in the same manner as border busting refugees and their already settled families.
    Immigration seems a diversion compared to the question of biological motivation, a motivation which often can only be imparted with extreme force or a set of incentives so great that we’ve yet to discover them.

    When I return to the States from France, via Montreal, inevitably I end up in upstate NY. Last time through I stopped for Chinese in one of these poverty-stricken villages and couldn’t help notice the similarities between these people and the migrant classes back in France. Dejected confidence, prideful poverty, lack of decor, subtle boorishness and an extreme inclination toward clannishness. Mostly uselessness.

    These dormant and underperforming units of labor will languish until we develop undeniable incentives, forced for otherwise. It’s a shame to see it goes to waste and reversing the tide will only come about through a process of dehumanization, of course without calling it as such. Short of that it seems we’re at a loss on how to efficiently crack this nut.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 15th, 2015 at 2:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • Shenpen Says:

    Actually this works in small quantities, just not big ones.I know as a Hungarian. Take a German company. Put a Hungarian into every department. We adapt to the cool, professional, objective attitude there. Make a department comprise of mostly Hungarians and we revert to our usual ineffective ways, forming 3-4 cliques of us who then spend all the time bickering with each other.

    It is not even the throughput speed of immigration that is crucial, but the dispersal: immigrants should be spread basically equally instead of concentrating in places. The important thing is to always FEEL like a minority who FEELS a majority pressure to adapt and conform or get isolated. NEVER be allowed to be feel a local majority in any place no matter how small that place is – not even a corporate department or gas station nor a street.

    I think the general positive success of Jewish immigration in America was precisely in that dispersal. Herman Wouk wrote they had gentile neighbors even in Brooklyn. And many many decided to not live in Brooklyn. Or South Italians. Put all of them in one place and you get Mafia, put them dispersed like Texas oil rig workers and they are all right.

    Same story. I am perfectly OK with ONE third-world neighbor as long as they are alone and their only chance to make friends is to adapt to locals.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 16th, 2015 at 11:13 am Reply | Quote
  • prof. Challenger Says:

    In this thread: “nrxers” missing the point of mr. Land.

    “Conservatism”, as epitomized by Chesterton’s Fence, is about recognizing the embedded complexity in the existent order, rather than trying to pick it apart and rebuild it on a Cartesian grid. That’s why the only proper “conservative” political position is lamentation at the ratchet and so forth.

    However — if we’re hoping to move further than that, if we think we’re able to conquer Moldbug’s challenge that a 1980s conservative would be a 1940s leftist, we have to make *some* sense of this complexity. This is why we have a fritzed-out post-deleuzean philosopher around.

    Sure, atavistic reiteration of preexisting intuitions is the proper conservative move — again, lived experience, Dasein, skin in the game. In D&G-ese, the worthy notions carrying embedded complexity of conservatism are strata, entropy valleys — but coalitions, political movements, “assemblages” (that are articulated in their content, even HBD-wise, and their expression) *territorialize* their milieu, they make it into territory. What does “Free Association” mean? For one, it implies separating the formation of assemblages from their territorializing action over the low-entropy strata they’re trying to articulate.

    Now, if this sounds like a lot of gibberish it’s because I’m not excellent at explaining myself. But can we at least make an effort at being less parochial?

    [Reply]

    Professor Barker Reply:

    “Now, if this sounds like a lot of gibberish it’s because I’m not excellent at explaining myself.”

    It’s cybernetics, I ain’t got to explain shit.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 17th, 2015 at 4:24 am Reply | Quote
  • Chuck Says:

    “The point is: Territory (used responsibly) is a population-sorting resource. Any position that takes it more seriously than that is sliding into romantic fetishism”

    Territory is a tangible good, not just a forum for assortative association. Not all land is equally valuable. My current property might afford equal assortative value as one in the ghetto, but it’s in a more pleasant local. A struggle over territory is not just a struggle over freedom of association, but also over the resources on the land, no?

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 17th, 2015 at 9:47 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment